It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
When 2 groups of thought have extreme beliefs it's very rare that a consensus will happen. It's hard to debate when neither party can find a common ground to start from. Usually this common ground is respect for each other's opinion.

If I don't give any additional detail then you can run with whatever your own personal belief or bias allows. For example I collect firearms. I enjoy the way the mechanisms work. I like the noise they make. The smell of gunpowder. I also appreciate the function these tools provide as far as self defense. But if I don't elaborate a person who is anti gun can automatically "assume" that I am a "gun fanatic" and apply an extreme view because it helps them in their own arguments.

You may call me an "athiest" because I don't have any religious beliefs but again that's not the term that I use to describe myself.

I consider myself ignorant.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I found that quite amusing the none sequiturs were impressive

cognitive biases were running rampant, it was playing up to all the usual stereotypes but then failed miserably by using Nietzsche and carrying on framing all atheist as lovers of Nietzsche who have memorized all his works

we do not think God is dead because we killed him, we think he never existed so there blows the 'they are all going to be neurotic'

and if we deeply believed on an unconscious level then every time we stated anything about god more then likely being the ramblings of a desert goat herder with temporal brain epilepsy we would all suffer mass attacks of cognitive dissonance, who ever wrote that piece should really learn that the unconscious runs the show the conscious mind just thinks it does so if you're going against your unconscious it wont be a hidden thing you will know it

and Atheists do not seem to find the fact theres no one up there watching over us disturbing, we do find the thought that the twisted narcissistic genocidal infanticidal racist blood thirsty all loving all merciful god of the old testament is up there though, if hes up there, hell certainly seems a better option ...... But that was invented to scare people in the middle ages and the original concept of unbeliever death was just death then nothing

but hey way to try to twist it into a Religious V' the Atheists that want to kill god to try to gain some support


can not address the arguments so just pull out a shoal of red herring and let the ad-homonyms fly?

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I'm gonna have to go with noob on that one.

I tend to avoid "cut and paste" syndrome as the opinions that I offer are mine and mine alone. And I also avoid personal attacks though I don't mind being attacked.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by Aermacchi

I don't care what evolution says I only care about what Science doesn't say and what it doesn't say is that e-coli will ALWAYS be e-coli PERIOD and will never be anything else. JUST LIKE EVERY SPECIES OF MAMMAL.

So Ill say it, just in case anyone gets the idea that Lemski's experiment was any evidence for macro evolution in the process of becoming something else other than what it will always be.

That again?

E-coli
umm sorry who's saying that is what Lemski's experiment was about?




It had nothing to do with proving macro evolution that's old hat and long ago proven, bear with me I'm using the actual science definition not creationism's dream version of macro when I say that

So if Lemski's E-coli had nothing to do with proving macro evolution, and your the person that brought up lemski's research to say that it didn't prove macro evolution, something it didn't try to show then...whats Your point?

Its not like your cutting off an argument before it starts because anyone with enough sense has at least tried to grasp the basics of lemski's research and wouldn't be arguing that(besides Nylonase is much more impressive then modification to an existing cit+ system)


Wow all that because you think you I don't know part of evolution said e-coli shouldn't be e-coli?

Now let me try this again since you obviously missed my entire post as concise and to the point as it was, YOU read something else apparently. Then you go off the hook in this last post fuming like a smoke stack from the little train that could with about as much self aggrandizing self puffery about how you "ripped my arguments apart when you haven't read my post. So Ill say it once again.

I don't care what YOU say or what evolutionists say about lemski's experiment. I only care about what they don't say.

That means, I repeat, that the e-coli has stayed e-coli and any adaptations it has made are not what?

Added information to the genome via beneficial mutations.

Because why?

Because that was that stumped dawkins and does to this day in spite of the youtube response the fact is IT DOESN'T happen and the expressions in this experiment proved nothing but variation in a strain of bacteria once thought to be non existent. You might portray this as only about nylonase and citrate but if you look at the long term goal of this experiment we see the following hopes and the leap of faith some hold for such futile expectations.


Main focus
The main focus of my lab is on experimental evolution. Evolution is usually investigated using the comparative method or by studying fossils. Our approach is to watch evolution as it happens, in the context of experiments that are replicated and performed under controlled conditions. The idea of watching evolution in action is not new. In fact, Charles Darwin, in the first edition of On the Origin of Species (1859, p. 187), said "In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors ; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form."

In order to study evolution as it happens requires either a time machine (which we don't have) or else organisms that replicate, mutate, and evolve very fast, so that we can detect changes on a reasonable time scale. In our research, we are now performing experiments with two different fast-evolving systems:

Bacteria, primarily Escherichia coli; and
Digital organisms in the Avida system.

In both systems, we are investigating the dynamics of evolution, including genomic as well as phenotypic changes. We aim to integrate our understanding of these genomic and phenotypic changes by identifying and manipulating the genetic and ecological determinants of organismal performance and fitness. The approaches we use to draw these connections span a wide range, from finding specific mutations of interest to analyzing arrays that summarize the relationship between the entire genome and all the phenotypes that it encodes. By using two very different systems, we seek commonalities that may indicate more general features of evolving systems. Of equal interest, major differences between these systems may lead us to further experiments that explore the reasons for particular outcomes.



Long-Term Evolution Experiment
In a long-term evolution experiment with E. coli, we founded 12 replicate populations from the same ancestor, and these populations have evolved for more than 30,000 generations in identical environments. We have performed competition experiments to quantify changes in organismal fitness, analyzed whole-genome expression arrays to find beneficial mutations in genes encoding global regulators, and measured spontaneous mutation rates to discover changes in DNA-repair functions - among many other approaches and findings. Even after more than a decade of study, we continue to find fascinating evolutionary changes in these evolving populations.



Now you would have us believe that this is NOT about the common belief among evolutionists that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species.

You are saying that this was NOT about that but merely to extrapolate data to further substantiate beneficial mutations using an a priori basis to predict the outcome or just to prove it could transfer citrate and thrive as a viable method of sustinance.

Why ?

Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering THAT's WHY!

However like I said before. I don't care what they did, for how long they did it or how many years they let it mutate. Mine was not an argument against what they said it did do nor was it against what happened and for what reason they did it.

It was only to illustrate that no matter what the so called changes to this e-coli, they could have ran this experiement for a million years and ya know what they would have in the pitri dish?


E-COLI!

That isn't an argument, it is a FACT and just wanted to let others how might otherwise think it would eventually diverge into other phylatype other species.

Sorry Noob, I just don't see how you have destroyed my argument in anyway. All you have done is shown how dramatic one gets when another challenges evolution.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
So exactly what does the E. Coli reference actually prove?

And I mean on both sides of the argument.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by noobfun
 


I'm gonna have to go with noob on that one.

I tend to avoid "cut and paste" syndrome as the opinions that I offer are mine and mine alone. And I also avoid personal attacks though I don't mind being attacked.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]


Gee looking at your first two posts,,

was there any doubt!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Exactly the non-answer I expected from you Aermacchi.

It's very simple. All you need to do is provide definitive proof your ideas are the correct ideas.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I found that quite amusing the none sequiturs were impressive

cognitive biases were running rampant, it was playing up to all the usual stereotypes but then failed miserably by using Nietzsche and carrying on framing all atheist as lovers of Nietzsche who have memorized all his works

we do not think God is dead because we killed him, we think he never existed so there blows the 'they are all going to be neurotic'

and if we deeply believed on an unconscious level then every time we stated anything about god more then likely being the ramblings of a desert goat herder with temporal brain epilepsy we would all suffer mass attacks of cognitive dissonance, who ever wrote that piece should really learn that the unconscious runs the show the conscious mind just thinks it does so if you're going against your unconscious it wont be a hidden thing you will know it

and Atheists do not seem to find the fact theres no one up there watching over us disturbing, we do find the thought that the twisted narcissistic genocidal infanticidal racist blood thirsty all loving all merciful god of the old testament is up there though, if hes up there, hell certainly seems a better option ...... But that was invented to scare people in the middle ages and the original concept of unbeliever death was just death then nothing

but hey way to try to twist it into a Religious V' the Atheists that want to kill god to try to gain some support


can not address the arguments so just pull out a shoal of red herring and let the ad-homonyms fly?

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]


First of all I wasn't talking to you

second, it isn't MY non sequitur, it was an external quote.



athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun


(shakin head like a cartoon)



we do not think God is dead because we killed him, we think he never existed - Noobfun


Sounds like you don't know WHAT you believe noobfun.

When you can stop contradicting yourself while you "highfive" yourself for "ripping" my arguments to shreads while you attache everyone elses non sequiturs to my authorship while in the same voice calling me dishonest. Nothing personal noob but I find your posts simply very distasteful.

I am reminded by all your extraneuous adject discriptions of us and the additional but un-necessary opinions and commentary thrown in for,, oh I could only speculate but I know what it feels like and because of it,,

I don't like you and Ill not miss your posts.

IGNORNCE DENIED.

Buh bye








[edit on 9-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Again a typical straw man response. Since the dissenter doesn't get swayed then he obviously "doesn't know what he believes"



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Exactly the non-answer I expected from you Aermacchi.

It's very simple. All you need to do is provide definitive proof your ideas are the correct ideas.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]


and lemme guess,, YOU are unbiased impartial judge of what is or isn't the "correct" idea.

I always love it when someone casually involved in a thread not really contributing much more than the support he gives to those he has the same or similar opinion, EXPECTS me to impress him with data or seek his approval because he got an answer he expected when it was more than that. It was the answer it deserved.

Oh here this Idea is correct www.abovetopsecret.com...

unless you think lemski doesn't know what his own experiments were about .



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


How about instead of the answer it deserved give the one that proves the idea without further debate or conjecture?

Again another straw man response.

Please feel free and go back and quote where I claimed to be a judge of any sort.

"I always love it when someone casually involved in a thread not really contributing much more than the support he gives to those he has the same or similar opinion"

Do you really love it? Of course not. But would you have loved it if my responses supported you? I suppose I should let you decide what I should support or not, huh? Fundamentalist mindset at it's finest.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Again a typical straw man response. Since the dissenter doesn't get swayed then he obviously "doesn't know what he believes"


Straw man? Umm read my post again and see the two quotes by noob??

Yeah he said BOTH of those about Gods existence and what atheists / evolutionist like himself believe. Now You tell me,, what is wrong with that picture. You have just shown me you are so busy looking for errors in my post to attack that you haven't taken the time to nor given even the slightest measure of respect to know what they mean.

You just automatically assume A STRAW MAN.

This is going nowhere

bye



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Where am I looking for errors in your posts? I asked for definitive proof. One or two petri dish/fruit fly references are far from proof.

Sheesh...if you can't take it don't (petri) dish it out!

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl

Do you really love it? Of course not. But would you have loved it if my responses supported you?
[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]


No



Text I suppose I should let you decide what I should support or not, huh? Fundamentalist mindset at it's finest.


If you would have waited till I answered this question you might have known not to be so presumptuous .

but I really must go

warm regards



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Why leave now? It was just getting interesting. Besides I need to get my posts over 200 so that I can join the chat room



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
wow....and the debate continues....

yes, I watched expelled.....found it online took about six hours to watch it and like I said......I was amazed that Darwin's theory or theories are over 150 years old.......since they are that old I guess I expected that science would have come up with something....anything...that without a doubt proves his theory, or theories, right or wrong....without a doubt being the key word here for as it appears by the length of this thread.....there is some doubt......

....isn't science, well, science, because by its nature it can prove something right or wrong??

btw...i enjoyed expelled primarily because ben stein is in part a comedian and I enjoy his banter.......i did not take much of anything from the movie as a whole, other than my original thoughts and wonder.......

honestly i could care less about creationism versus evolution....it's a mystery that is probably a mystery for a reason......




[edit on 9-2-2009 by prjct]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by prjct
 


I couldn't agree more.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Wow all that because you think you(grammar?) I do not know part of evolution said E-coli should not be E-coli?
say what? evolution says it should still be a strain of bacteria sharing common traits with its origins E-coli while being different enough to classify it as a differing strain of E-coli which it is


Now let me try this again since you obviously missed my entire post as concise and to the point as it was,
there was no point which is why i questioned the motive for said argument to appear


I do not care what YOU say or what evolutionists say about lemski's experiment. I only care about what they do not say.

That means, I repeat, that the E-coli has stayed E-coli and any adaptations it has made are not what?

Added information to the genome via beneficial mutations.
it has several traits brought about by mutation and natural selection to the lab environment not found in wild strains of E-coli that increased it survivability within the lab conditions allowing it not only to survive but to thrive and replicate successfully in conditions hostile to wild E-coli ...so beneficial mutations as they were mutations (as clearly shown by not all colonies developing the traits) and were beneficial as it improved its fitness

so if those novel and new traits are not the product of new information within its genome they are what? owing to some of these new traits being encoded into duplicated DNA then its additional information that takes precedent over the still intact no longer used common DNA with wild E-coli


Because that was that stumped Dawkins and does to this day in spite of the YouTube response the fact is IT DOESN'T happen
downsyndrome added genetic information, duplication adds genetic information, increase in chromosomal count in hybridized plants adds genetic information

maybe look into information theory so you understand how even adding just one pair of codons adds one bit of information, so with extra chromosomes you're adding two entire lengths of DNA worth of new information

it may stump Dawkins but i can answer that the question



and the expressions in this experiment proved nothing but variation in a strain of bacteria once thought to be non existent.
Who thought speciation events and mutations in bacteria did not exist?

well you could argue Behe when he went on the record to say HIV was not and cannot mutate but it turns out its two major strains with massive genetic variation within a single host, in fract we have observed natural selection in action on simple self forming self replicating polymers within vesicles and they suffer copying errors on occasion in a similar fashion to DNA

so if we see it happening before it can be considered alive and seen it happening at every level of life then who says it doesn't happen in bacteria?


You might portray this as only about nylonase and citrate but if you look at the long term goal of this experiment we see the following hopes and the leap of faith some hold for such futile expectations.

shall we? and its long term results not goals

its what happened not what they hoped to achieve


Long-Term Evolution Experiment
In a long-term evolution experiment with E. E-coli, we founded 12 replicate populations from the same ancestor, and these populations have evolved for more than 30,000 generations in identical environments. We have performed competition experiments to quantify changes in organismal fitness, analyzed whole-genome expression arrays to find beneficial mutations in genes encoding global regulators, and measured spontaneous mutation rates to discover changes in DNA-repair functions - among many other approaches and findings. Even after more than a decade of study, we continue to find fascinating evolutionary changes in these evolving populations.




Now you would have us believe that this is NOT about the common belief among evolutionists that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act on resulting in entirely new species.
this is essential what happened several new strains of E-coli resulted that are unable to survive outside of the lab conditions but by the same token wild E-coli could not survive within those final lab conditions


You are saying that this was NOT about that but merely to extrapolate data to further substantiate beneficial mutations using an a priori basis to predict the outcome or just to prove it could transfer citrate and thrive as a viable method of sustinance.
I am saying nothing of the sort

the experiment was to show conclusively which of the two hypotheses were correct if evolution re-run would turn out wildly different or would be very similar or the same result

it showed conclusively it would arrive at similar results because earlier benign mutations have an affect on directing the path of genetic alterations to suit new environments, the benign mutations are only benign at the moment but in future development can have drastic affects on the range of ways to solve an environmental problem


Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering THAT's WHY!
actually its considered a transcription error that may lead to beneficial or negative expressions of genes

it's not genetic engineering as that implies a directed intelligent process which is more akin to ID and its variation within species argument


It was only to illustrate that no matter what the so called changes to this E-coli, they could have ran this experiment for a million years and ya know what they would have in the petri dish?

E-COLI!
but the new strains are only E-coli as bacteria have such a wide one size fits all

it's akin to saying a rodent going through 150 years of speciation and micro-evolution still only ends with rodents, when what it actually ends up with are numerous new species of mouse

which is exactly what evolution predicts will happen, if in another 150 years one of those new rodent species diverges and becomes carnivorous and stoat like it will still have the same traits as a rodent and will still be a rodent until someone decides to give it a new classification to distinguish it for identification purposes, every taxonomic classification above species is purely for our benefit

in the same way millions of years of evolution give us birds which are still reptiles

and we still carry the long line of cladistic traits going back to our reptilian ancestors and beyond, the labels are for our benefit

cladistics cladistics cladistics, your hung up on the wrong labels


That isn't an argument, it is a FACT and just wanted to let others how might otherwise think it would eventually diverge into other phylatype other species.
think you mean phylotype

and the cvit+ is a new phylotype within the E-coli family


Sorry Noob, I just don't see how you have destroyed my argument in anyway. All you have done is shown how dramatic one gets when another challenges evolution.
i was referring to past threads as yet you haven't made an argument

you've stated that the experiments don't state something so its wrong even though you have used the wrong word and not realized it is in fact an new phylotype within the E-coli umbrella

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

First of all I wasn't talking to you
well i answered maybe you should have addresed it to who it was meant for and not used my nic in the descritor


second, it isn't MY non sequitur, it was an external quote.
i know it had the external source quotes and everything

and i dont believe i said it was your comments infact i am fairly sure i might even go a far as 100% sure i made no such claim



athiests say there isnt a NEED for a god,
not that there is no God, - Noobfun




we do not think God is dead because we killed him, we think he never existed - Noobfun



Sounds like you don't know WHAT you believe noobfun.
i know exactly what i mean, and the second comment is a perfectly acceptable strong atheistic comment

for my self i should have placed probabily in there, as to say deffinatley requires a small leap of faith im not prepared to make

so two comments along the same lines one made from a strong athiestic perspective one from a less faith based perspective

although i would love to see where that first comment came from im willing to bet it in relation to what can be stated based on scientific findings which makes it a quote mine by removal of the context that quantifies the statement


my arguments to shreads while you attache everyone elses non sequiturs to my authorship
care to show where i said they were YOUR non sequiturs?


while in the same voice calling me dishonest. Nothing personal noob but I find your posts simply very distasteful.
thats funny i find many of yours dishonest shall i go find the ones where you state your an evolutionist then change tact? or the one where you state as fact a book from 2002 deals with and discredits a fossil found in 2004? how about above where you stated the videos i link have been discredit by reputable YouTube member? who are these people that have dicredited scientists working in the field of chemical biology and neuro biology with access to all the latest scientific findings


I don't like you and Ill not miss your posts.
ill try not to shed a tear


IGNORNCE DENIED.
your actually going to learn about evolution so you know what your objecting to?

or would that only happen if you denied IGNORANCE?


Buh bye
back on the ignore list *sob* want to put a bunch of second rate videos for me to debunk like last time you put me on ignore so i have somthing to do? i really liked the one where the guy said chromosone 2 couldnt have fussed becasue on the picture a red thing disappeared becasue he didnt understand the red thing was a centromere or that it didnt diappear it became inactive so was no longer highlighted




[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Interesting, as I hear tale the pro ID people thought that for political reasons (not merits) they would win that case (because the judge was a Con appointee by bush, etc. etc.).

But because he sided that it wasn't science he has no integrity?

I like the following:

" * Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin's Black Box.

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible."

Wiki overview

Overview of testimony

Then the whole institute who was scheduled to be defense expert witnesses.. all pulling so they would not have to defend ID under oath.

But remember: Its the Judge who lacks integrity.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join